How Much Is Too Much?

I am in awe of how some songs, pieces of music are inherently reinforcing for some and not others.  I think this speaks to how unique our experiences with music are, and by extension, how anything can be thought of as potentially reinforcing.  While I may not enjoy every genre of music, I appreciate the vast number of them out there and the growing variety of sounds musicians experiment with to create new genres.  The sources for reinforcement seem almost endless; and yet, at some point, a particular song or genre seems to fade away from our playlist.  This effect can be described as satiation: when over-exposure to an item, activity etc. changes its reinforcing effects.  Listen to a song, album or artist 'too many' times and you might lose interest.

Given the phenomena of satiation I am surprised that there isn't more of a variety on some radio stations.  It seems that there is this wave of the same 10 or so songs that no matter which station I put on, I am pretty much guaranteed to hear within the hour.  At some point in the wave these songs become aversive, and I turn the station or the radio off upon hearing any one of them (an example of negative reinforcement).  Not only am I satiating on these songs, but my 'turning the radio off' behaviour is increasing.  I cannot imagine the radio stations benefit from this type of listening behaviour, so there must be another source of reinforcement for them to keep their formula going.  While my radio listening habits may be effected by over-exposure of the songs they play, this over-exposure seems to be paying off for them (i.e., it is being reinforced).  I am guessing that these radio stations are on a fixed-ratio schedule of reinforcement where they get a pay-out depending on how many, or how often a song gets played.

Because of this (and other aversive stimuli radio stations seem to present themselves with/as), I embrace my mp3 player(s).  Variety, choice, immediate gratification, and if I get bored with a song, I'll have plenty more to choose from.  I may still satiate on a song, album or artist but at least there is another source of reinforcement next down on the playlist.

It's Not All About Rewards

This posting has been weeks in the making.  I have had a lot of discussion lately about rewards and another common misconception surrounding behaviourism.  Many people against behaviourism cite that rewards don't always work, are contrived and take away from the natural and intrinsic motivation which should be inherent in our behaviour(s).  Where things get tricky is that behaviourism does not speak of rewards, but of reinforcement and these are two different (but often paired together) things.

Rewards are contrived.  They are often things that others assume other people want like: money, free trips, candy, pizza lunches, a "good job" sticker or a "free" whatever.  It assumes that these "things" are desired and worth our effort to learn and succeed.  Reinforcement however, is anything that happens after a behaviour that increases the likelihood of that behaviour happening again.  I cannot stress enough the "anything" part of that sentence.  A reinforcer can be anything: food, a book, access to friends, a smile, a nice feeling on our skin, a rubber glove, a piece of paper, a silly word, the satisfaction of completing something, etc.  I could go on and on.  The key point is that reinforcement is defined by its effect on behaviour and not on its pleasing or preferred attributes; hence, the 'anything can be a reinforcer', even something we do not like ourselves.  If a behaviour is increasing or maintaining itself, then reinforcement is at play.  In many cases, reinforcement occurs naturally in the environment or is inherent in the activity; its effect on behaviour go unnoticed.  We do not have to be aware of it for reinforcement to have occurred.

If a new behaviour is not increasing or, if an already established behaviour is decreasing, then there is no reinforcement.  Therefore, when claims are made about rewards not working, they are correct.  The reward is not working because the reward is not acting as a reinforcer.  Only sometimes do we get it right where a reward actually functions as a reinforcer.  But, we also make the mistake of assuming that because we (or the general population) like a particular thing, that it will be rewarding for others.  Even a preferred item (like money) can fail as a reinforcer.

It's a shame that when we get it wrong, Skinner, and the field of behaviourism gets the blame and the science is written off as dated, useless.  To me, it seems that people took one part of Skinner's ideas and, without much thought for the science behind it, over-generalized its use as a way to 'motivate' (cough, cough, control, cough) others.  And because this might have increased productivity or "good behaviour" for a while, those implementing the rewards were themselves reinforced for doing so.  

See how reinforcement just sneaks right in there?  It's everywhere and it's happening all the time.  Rewards on the other hand, can be hit or miss.  Don't blame behaviourism because the reward failed to do what you hoped to get out of someone.  Look for what else is happening (or not happening) and you just might see reinforcement in action.

New Week Resolutions

A new year.  A new month.  A new week.  A new day.  

I am always curious at the goals people set for themselves for the new year; setting the course for an entire year.  Quit smoking, lose weight, go to the gym more, stop eating donuts (okay...that last one may have been mine).  If you're thinking within the time frame of a year, those are some high expectations.  Expectations, that if not met, then make it look like you have failed.  That's not being very fair to yourself, now is it?  Instead of 'go big or go home', a more fair way would be to just go home and figure out what rate you are already performing at and then go small.  This is often referred to as gathering the baseline data.  If 'quiting smoking' is your goal and you're currently smoking 25 cigarettes a day, expecting yourself to go down to zero in a day may be too big of a change in rate.  Instead, I'd aim to cut your smoking by 1-2 cigarettes a day for a few weeks and see how you're doing.  Or, if you've never set foot inside a gym (i.e., baseline is zero), then setting a goal of once every two weeks may be more realistic.

The nice thing about setting the bar at a much more realistic level, is that once the goal has been met, you can always increase/decrease it further.  On the other hand, setting the bar too high and then never reaching it sure doesn't feel good.  This is where people often give up.  Why bother?  I can't do it!  That is why I propose a new trend in goal-setting: new week resolutions or new day resolutions!  For me, this means eating only one donut a week.

There's obviously much more to setting and attaining your goals than just a smaller time-frame or a close-to-baseline rate of behaviour (and the answer isn't more willpower either).  It's more than I can get into in one blog post - hence the reason for this whole blog in the first place!  But some other goal-setting tips:

• Be specific and concrete as possible (e.g., texas style donuts don't count)
• Word your goal in the positive - what you WILL do, versus what you WON'T do.  
• And in some cases, if you're trying to decrease a particular behaviour of yours, it also helps to define what may replace it.  For example, to stop nail-biting, you may need to replace it with 5 minutes of using a stress-ball or giving yourself a finger massage.  The theory behind this, is that time spent doing the replacement behaviour, may either take away from the target behaviour or fulfill the same consequences as the target behaviour.

We're less than three hours away from 2011.  I wish everyone a happy new day, week or month of goals and resolutions ahead.  Keep them small, specific and positive and remember to find yourself replacements and it can be a positive and prosperous new year!

Afraid of Change?

We hear it time and time again: nobody likes change.  It sends some people into panic mode.  Others act stubborn while holding on to the same old way of doing things.  And why not?  You already know what to expect with the same old things.  With the same old things, you can reliably predict that reinforcement is coming your way.  Day in and day out, these 'things' have signaled to you that good things are about to happen.  Now all of a sudden, someone wants to change things and you don't know what to expect.  Will the same good things happen?  Does this new thing signal a reinforcer or a punisher is coming my way?  I suspect that this unknown factor is behind the resistance to change.  Having not gone through the sequence of  'new thing' → new behaviour → consequence (I use the word 'thing' here to stay away from the technical term known as 'stimulus discriminative') it is difficult to predict whether a good or bad outcome will follow.  Sometimes people don't know what to do with themselves when things change and there is a valiant attempt at securing what once was.   All people are trying to do is ensure that a reinforcer comes through.


People are expected to just deal with change.  Kids especially are just supposed to "go with the flow" - do what the adults say.  While it is a hallmark skill of maturity and emotional regulation to adjust and adapt, we could all help people deal a little better with the change that is about to occur by recognizing it takes a few more practices and a continuous rate of reinforcement to set out on a new track.  I believe this is what we would refer to as demonstrating patience.  

So, the lesson here: when things change, all we need is just a little patience.  We will eventually learn that most of the new things we're doing turned out alright.

The Problem With Punishment

Punishment is the most misunderstood and misused procedure in society management of others' behaviours.  We are a society that tends to gravitate towards 'punishing' other's wrong-doings (e.g., jail, demerit point system, being sent to the principal's office).  Its misuse is a source of frustration for me because when 'punishment' fails, people are quick to associate behaviourist theory as "wrong"..."behaviour modification doesn't work" etc.  The problem with 'punishment' however, is that people think they're applying punishment, but often they are not.  For this reason, I put the word, 'punishment' in quotations.  Technically, punishment by definition is a consequence that decreases the occurrence of a behaviour.  It can be the addition of something unpleasant or the removal of something pleasurable.

If it does not decrease a behaviour, it is not punishment.

Imagine a child about to touch a hot stove and their parent slaps their hand away.  Assuming that slaps on the hand are unpleasant, then the child is less likely to try touching the stove again.  In this example, the slap occurred immediately following the behaviour.   Herein lies one misuse of 'punishment': its timing.  If there has been some time between the behaviour and the 'punishing' consequence, then you have not punished the intended behaviour.  The behaviour will probably continue and it will seem like 'punishment' isn't working.  It simply wasn't punishment to begin with.  When we invest all our energies into "getting back at" someone or when we "...make them accountable for what they did" after the fact, we've essentialy had no effect on their behaviour(s).  We've missed the boat.  It's likely that the behaviour in question was already reinforced and therefore, is more likely to occur again.

This week in Ontario, the details of (the former Colonel) Russell William's crimes were made public.  The crimes were horrific.  Many people were calling for him to be punished for what he did.  Others still felt his jail sentence was not punishment enough.  In society's misguided need for punishment, we've failed to see that jail is not a punishment.  It's been months since his crimes and unfortunately, he has already received reinforcement for doing them (his own sick pleasure).  We cannot undo that effect, and so I believe that given the opportunity to engage in the same behaviours again, he will.  Jail for now will serve as a means to eliminate or reduce those opportunities.  I am not saying that Russell Williams should not be sentenced or placed in jail.  The man needs to stay far, far away from the public.  But let's just call jail what it is: a means to keep criminals away from the public and to reduce opportunities to engage in like criminal behaviour (but given what we know happens in prisons, this may not be applicable to all cases).  If society really wants to rehabilitate criminals, sitting in a jail cell to "think about what they did" is moot.  Determining the contingencies that surrounded the occurrences (and non-occurrences) of the target behaviour is the first step towards behaviour change.    

I hope people think more about their supposed delivery of 'punishment' and determine if what they're doing really is punishment at all.  It might cause less frustration knowing you're applying principles of behaviour correctly.  Maybe we can try looking for reinforcement or extinction instead.

Feelings. Nothing More Than Feelings (Part II)

So, we know that feelings are not the causes for behaviour.  It can be quickly assumed that behaviourist thus ignore their existence.  I'm not here to take feelings away from you; rather, lets think about their existence as a byproduct of a consequence.

We're happy when we have received or are in the presence of a preferred item, activity or outcome.  That could be getting a hug, eating some chocolate, thinking about a concert we went to, seeing an A+ on your report card.  All of these things are potential reinforcers.  I say "I love you" (a behaviour) which leads to getting a hug (reinforcement) which leaves me feeling happy (the feeling).  You pay the cashier one dollar (a behaviour) which leads to eating a chocolate bar (reinforcement) which leaves you feeling happy (the feeling)  Therefore, happiness occurs AFTER one's received reinforcement.

Meanwhile, we're typically sad when these preferred items, activities or outcomes that we've come to expect are absent.  For example, when your partner has to work late and has to cancel dinner plans, when your team loses at dodge ball this week or when your favourite doughnut is sold out.  You were expecting the usual reinforcement for your actions; however, it did not deliver.  What a disappointment! (or another word for sad).  And if you were disappointed enough, you might even have to do something about it!  Like cry, throw a tantrum or drive to the other side of the city to get what you want.  Did somebody say extinction burst?

It's not that behaviourist won't acknowledge that feelings exist.  We just see them as byproducts of reinforcement (or lack thereof).  Again, the war on words is fought and the behaviourist will lose.  It's far easier to say you're crying because you are sad.  If someone were to ask you why you are sad, you can now say, "Because I'm going through a bit of an extinction burst since I'm not being reinforced as I had come to expect."  They don't teach that on Sesame Street do they?        

Feelings. Nothing More Than Feelings

If this were one of Skinner's pigeons, it probably should read 'The Pigeon Has Private Events Which He's Made Public Through Verbal Behaviours of Reporting His Feelings As Well As By His Behaviour Seen Here: Crossing of the Arms'.  Yes, pigeons (and humans) have feelings.  

Enter behaviourism myth #1: behaviourism does not explain or fails to account for feelings.  

Behaviourists do not discount feelings.  We just don't think they are the causes forbehaviour.  Remember learning in grade school about our 'five senses'? (There's actually seven, but that's another post all together).  When we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, move and resist gravity we are "feeling".  Since a feeling is within the person (i.e., its event is private), it's pretty hard to observe.  We've become adept however at observing a person's behaviour and making good (but not perfect) guesses that a certain feeling has occurred.  People have also learned to label these feelings - a form of verbal behaviour -  in order to make them public.  

Suppose you sense pain (the feeling) in your ankle, then begin to limp and wince (behaviours I can see).  I am probably going to guess you're in pain and offer you some help.  The limping may also temporarily minimize pain  If you actually say, "My ankle hurts" (a behaviour I can hear), then you've really got my attention and hopefully my offer of help will assist in reducing your pain.  The next time your ankle hurts, you might wince, limp and/or say "My ankle hurts" again in order to minimize the pain or get others to give you the help you need.  The behaviourist in me would say, you didn't wince, limp or say "My ankle hurts" because you were in pain; rather, you've learned that by engaging in those behaviours, your pain is likely to diminish, just like it had before.  Your feeling of pain might have set you up to wince, limp etc. but if the feeling of pain did not change and if no one ever responded to these behaviours, you'd probably stop doing them and try something else.  

So, the next time someone asks you, "Why are you limping?"  You could say, "Because in the past, limping resulted in making my pain diminish and so I am limping now in anticipation that the same will occur".  That's a mouthful and probably more information than what someone was looking for.  Alas, it is easier to say, "Because I'm in pain".  This is where perhaps the behaviourist won't win against efficiency.  As long as statements like this are accepted as true, behaviourists might never win this battle of words.  And so, the title 'The Pigeon Has Feelings Too' shall remain.

*Thank you to my classmates in 'Prinicples of ABA' for the discussion on feelings and 'reporting of feelings' that inspired this post.  I think the more we talk about it, the more we will "know".  Good ole B.F. Skinner gets props too!  Check out his book, 'About Behaviorism' for more on this subject.